2014-11-25_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

441 Mr. Streier advised that the lease structure allowed Newport Partners to leverage 442 federal tax benefits through the sale of tax credits to investors; and provides the 443 City with a turnkey proposal, with all engineering, design, installation and 444 financing costs covered, and the City making annual power payments to Newport 445 Partners for electricity produced by the system at 85% of their Xcel Energy 446 contract rate. Mr. Streier further noted that, then after ten years, the City would 447 receive full ownership of the solar energy system at a cost of approximately one 448 year's power payment. 449 450 Mr. Streier reviewed Newport Partners' product, consisting of silicon energy 451 photovoltaic modules, called a voyageur PV module versus a cascade system, and 452 reviewed the advantages of this product economically, and for commercial roof 453 top installations compared to other types of installations and maintenance. Mr. 454 Streier advised that this was a glass-on-gl ss design to provide maximum 455 durability in Minnesota winters and tem ture fluctuations; and was made in 456 Minnesota, with high efficiency cells to increase power, and be fully compatible 457 with widely used commercial racking systems and inverters; with a thirty-year 458 warranty, longer than the typical twenty-five year ranty for most solar systems 459 in the industry. 460 461 At the request of Chair St and excludin e inverters, Mr. Streier advised 462 that the warranty extended thirty years, ten years beyond the cost projections 463 provided in the table provided by Mr. Streier (Attachment A) showing electricity 464 savings, down payment, and payback periods. Mr. Streier addressed the power 465 warranty over the first fifteen years, and thereafter, and replacement cost of 466 panels. 467 468 Mr. Streier displayed examples of their product installations over the last few 469 years, and their ballasted modular installation versus punching holes in a roof for 470 some types of installations. 471 472 t the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Streier reviewed the City's upfront costs 473 and payback period for a roof installation and/or utilizing a community solar 474 garden approach. Mr. Streier advised that there lease was calculated based on 475 income from the lease for overall tax investors, based on a system of this size and 476 projected cost of $240,000 and ratios per year. Mr. Streier advised that for 477 community solar, it had yet to be readied until details were finalized by the Public 478 Utilities Commi on (PUC), as far as what to charge, and based on whether or 479 not those systems are fully subscribed, and whether assumptions are accurate after 480 the regulatory process is completed. Mr. Streier suggested that, if the City 481 decides to pursue community solar, and considers hosting it and capitalizing 482 installation to come up with 100% from other subscribers with no out-of-pocket 483 cost for the City, it also needed to be aware that it would receive no bill credits or 484 energy savings itself. However, Mr. Streier reviewed other options for the City to 485 be a host as well as a subscriber, therefore seeing bill credits for the City's 486 investment share as a subscriber, with a return on that investment or payback not Page 11 of 17